Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website

Posted by samzenpus on from the tell-it-like-it-is dept.

Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications. The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face. The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery. Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."

5 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Title Correction: by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean to say "woman defends right to criticize surgeon on website." She cannot win what she already had.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  2. Re:According to courtroom reporters... by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What do you expect when you make such a serious decision on such short notice while admittedly depressed?"

    Are you saying that under these circumstances one should expect a shitty job? What, does your depression somehow affect the surgeon?

  3. The surgeon may have a point... by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've visited the web site in question, and I believe the surgeon has a point. It looks like the woman is using some of the same techniques shady businesses use to make before/after photos look different, but in reverse. These are:

    - One photo being done in a natural setting, one artificial.
    - One photo with a happy expression, one without
    - One photo with good lighting, one with very stark.
    - One photo with makeup, one without

    Some of this is related, but look. She insists one eyebrow is higher than the other and she is left with a permanent "surpised" look. This is quite possible, the eyebrow position can give that look, but raising the eyebrows would not have a significant effect on how wide her eye lids are open. Notice in the second photo she exadgerates her "surpised" look by opening her eyes as wide as possible. Add to that the camera in the before photo is slightly above her, and the angle difference adds to the effect. She is smiling in the first photo, which tends to close the eyelids a little and adjusts the eyebrow position.

    The makeup makes quite a difference to shading, and the after photo is in much more stark contrast, which elimates facial details.

    Also remember that the woman has filed a malpractice suit and stands to gain financially from seeming to look badly now.

    However the court ruled, I think the surgeon had a point.

    1. Re:The surgeon may have a point... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While you have a point, it is mitigated by the circumstances surrounding the photos.

      The entire point of make-up being to hide imperfections, it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo without make-up, especially if she had low self-esteem about her looks. If she had such a clinical "before" photo of her own, there would be plenty of people arguing that it was proof of premeditation to sue the doctor.

      If she were to wear make-up in the "after" photo it would also mitigate the effects of the surgically created imperfections which would not help her point at all, she wants to demonstrate the problem, not cover it up. Also, one of the reasons women get such work done in the first place is to reduce their perceived need to wear make-up, so if the surgery had gone well, she would not be wearing as much make-up as she had been before the surgery.

      Similarly it is unlikely that she would have a "before" photo that wasn't happy, people don't like to take pictures of unhappy times in their lives. You can't expect her to pose for an "after" photo and look happy - she's taking the photo specifically because she is unhappy, it would be ridiculous to expect her to be all smiles about it. Because she feels extremely unhappy with her new looks taking a picture, even in an attempt to get restitution or correction, is going to be an unpleasant experience for her.

      Camera and angle and lighting are much more likely to be the result of the amateur nature of both photos than any sort of explicit plan to manipulate the viewer.

      So, while I agree that her presentation is not necessarily evenhanded, I really doubt that it was calculated. At the very worst, she probably picked one of her better looking "before" pics and one of her worst "after" pics, but that's no different from a plastic surgeon who does the reverse in his marketing materials.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Re:Link to the website by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People should realise the risks of any surgery before they make minor cosmetic changes to their appeaarance.
    Well it's going to be pretty hard to learn about the risks if everybody with a complaint gets muzzled, now isn't it? This lawsuit has the direct effect of protecting peoples' right to learn about the risks.

    But I guess we can't have that, now can we? It might be bad for business.

    To be honest I don't even see how this case went to trial. How can we claim to have freedom of speech if you can't even complain about somebody doing a poor job? If she had knowingly made a factually false claim, then I could see it.